Page 11 of 27 FirstFirst ... 234567891011121314151617181920 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 396

Thread: 2019 American Political Scene

  1. #151
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    5,616
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    YOU ARE FREAKING DENSE! Does this reduce Gorbachev and subsequent Russian feelings of betrayal any less? We had a drunk Yelstin for decades who could not care less. Now we have a Putin who cares and remembers.
    No I am correct that is all. What Treaty did NATO enlargement break? None. Was there any force used? No. Were any regions annexed by an already existing NATO member? No. Have living standards in all newer members risen? Yes. I wonder why they chose freely to side with the West rather than Moscow? Perhaps you can work that out?

    In Crimea armed troops were in the voting booths.

    Don't have time to answer your other 'points' right now.

  2. #152
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    5,616
    DE China was not a signatory of the INF Treaty.

  3. #153
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    10,961
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    I was saying you don't accept criticism of the Indian Government in any form. Even when facts are thrown around, you come up with another reasoning, which to me seems another excuse, so I just quit that thread or the argument.
    The idea is to keep your eye on the ball. Try to.

    Who has the ball and what they do with it. If they score you get policy. This means you follow sources that are at the least sympathetic to the ruling party this way you can better understand what is happening. Yes, you get the party line. This is a good start because many times nobody knows what it is or whether it even exists. Now, these people also track how well promises are kept. They keep the score. I pay more attention to critiques from this group than what the opposition comes up with.

    The only time the opposition counts is when they can mount a defense. Block the ball.

    If they get the ball it means the ruling party lost the election so you watch what the new guy does with the ball.

    Trump wants to do a lot of things and also gets blocked a lot of times. He cannot always get his way.

    The reason i don't pay too much attention to the opposition is because its false narratives galore. No foreign entity can hope to compete with the opposition on this score.

    Why spin your wheels for nothing.

    This way of thinking works with any country that has free & fair elections.

    There was one comment i read elsewhere that got me thinking

    Think tanks are more important in parliamentary democracies compared to presidential system of government. American legislators are representatives of the people and quite often oppose their own party executive. In our case all legislators are tied to the party and do not represent the aspirations of their constituents. In such situations the MPs and MLAs could use these think tanks to convey their message to their leadership.
    What do you think ?
    Last edited by Double Edge; 13 Feb 19, at 14:21.

  4. #154
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    10,961
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    I thought too earlier.

    But like all other earlier POTUS, he's the same. Actually, he's worse. Doesn't take briefings from staff, tweets policies based on his temperament, probably corrupt to the core, right-wing nut case, and has an IQ that can be compared to an unhealthy mind. Oh, and the icing on the cake is his stupid hairstyle that he has not changed for decades.
    He's anti-establishment and this means he has enemies on both sides. You will have to look at this president differently to previous administrations. What does it say when Russian media is more sympathetic to him than his own media. That doesn't happen usually : D

    Let's go back, shall we? Some imaginary Soviet threat of wanting a warm water port. Military and civilian aid to Pak to counter that. De-stabilising Afghanistan to counter the Soviets, through support of Islamic terrorists. Then 9/11, 1000s die. Back to Afghanistan. Now, US wants to leave the mess they created and go back. From a NatSec point of view, does that make US safe? Maybe for another 10 years, then another boom in Manhattan. They'll leave behind jobless terrorists which the Pakistan Army would then turn towards our border, which the Indian Army will have to clean. No vision. Absolutely no vision at all from past and current POTUS.
    Why is the US still stuck in Afghanistan ? because over time vested interests build up in the system to keep it that way. This is why Trump says his generals are full of shit and need to go back to school. The common man is going to believe it. In fact it's very easy to believe anything this president says because you don't need an education to understand him. He's a great communicator. Always listen t what he says first before reading commentary about it. A lot of video clips are out of context and designed to bias you against him.

    Even after learning and killing OBL in Pakistan, we had to lobby hard to stop the sale of F-16s to Pakistan. I don't have words to express my frustration. You can call me biased. I am. But how does the treatment meted out to Pakistan help US' NatSec in any way? Withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan was Pakistan's long term strategy, and Pakistan is winning. Pakistan defeated 2 superpowers in 40 years. How many countries can boast of this achievement? Should have been a Pakistani, nevermind being called a terrorist as long as the country was winning. Long live Pakistan!!!

    Oops, wait for another 10-15 years. Pakistan is going to defeat another superpower.
    Their wins are short lived. Why didn't they try harder to prevent 9 - 11.

    Because 9 -11 happened, here is a country whose unstated policy is terrorism forced to become part of an anti-terrorism alliance.

    You don't think this experience has knocked the wind out of their sails ?

    Oh! they got lots of money from the Americans but at what cost.

    Is Pakistan any better off today than before 9 -11 ? the same ? or worse ?

    I can confidently say we are better off today.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 13 Feb 19, at 14:52.

  5. #155
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    6,232
    *DE's mind-trick started again*

    DE, the issue with your arguments is not the lack of reasoning per se, but that I actually agree with those when I read it. Only to go back in time later, and disagree.

    Why did US scrap the INF treaty? Yes, I've read it, because of the Russians, but to me it seems aimed at China. Every development in US now is aimed at China. This I wanted, and I've got, thanks to Bolton, Trump etc reading WAB. But, US has ignored the monster that sits on our border and infiltrates terrorists everyday. That's the worry. Can we handle it? Yes. Can the US handle another bomb going off in New York? Seems to be the case. Lives doesn't matter to politicians, votes do. These freaking bunch of monkeys are the same everywhere.
    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

  6. #156
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,788
    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    No I am correct that is all. What Treaty did NATO enlargement break? None.
    All this freaking means is that Gorbachev was too stupid to get this in writing. He got suckered. Neither he nor Russia forgot about it.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wB9uL2lKaw

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    Was there any force used? No.
    What have we been talking about? Yugoslavia. Croatia is a member and that could not have happened without UNPROFOR and OP DELIBERATE FORCE.

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    Were any regions annexed by an already existing NATO member? No.
    For crying out loud. Take the hint. Kohl and Gorbachev. East Germany.

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    Have living standards in all newer members risen?
    So has Russia and China. In fact, China has more to do with your standards of living by flooding the world with cheap goods.

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    I wonder why they chose freely to side with the West rather than Moscow? Perhaps you can work that out?
    Free money and free armies. The Baltic States combined could not field a single brigade. I get it. They hate Russia.

    But that does not mean that we have to kill and to die for them.
    Last edited by WABs_OOE; 13 Feb 19, at 18:01.

  7. #157
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,788
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    How am i doing ?
    Insert the Russians for the Americans and you got it correct. The bulk of the disputed systems are stationed in the East, out of range of to hit Europe. In the 2000s, the Russians talked about withdrawing from the INF mainly because of the threats from China, Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan.

    The development of a 2 egnines for 1 missile allowed them to skirt the issue ... or so they thought. The other thing they did was the development of a ballastic missile with INF range. However, they did not classified it as an IRBM but an ICBM, again deployed in the East.

  8. #158
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    10,961
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    Insert the Russians for the Americans and you got it correct. The bulk of the disputed systems are stationed in the East, out of range of to hit Europe. In the 2000s, the Russians talked about withdrawing from the INF mainly because of the threats from China, Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan.

    The development of a 2 egnines for 1 missile allowed them to skirt the issue ... or so they thought. The other thing they did was the development of a ballastic missile with INF range. However, they did not classified it as an IRBM but an ICBM, again deployed in the East.
    So the Americans dumping the treaty means they can also challenge China but now it makes Russia watch for its western border as well.

    Anyway let's see where the Americans deploy these missiles. In Europe or in the far east.

    China has been very quiet throughout this whole affair.

  9. #159
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,788
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    So the Americans dumping the treaty means they can also challenge China but now it makes Russia watch for its western border as well.

    Anyway let's see where the Americans deploy these missiles. In Europe or in the far east.

    China has been very quiet throughout this whole affair.
    China is already covered. 400+ ALCM at Deigo Garcia. I believe this who fiasco is about getting kinetic kill missiles on line.
    Last edited by WABs_OOE; 13 Feb 19, at 22:34.

  10. #160
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    6,232
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    China is already covered. 400+ ALCM at Deigo Garcia. I believe this who fiasco is about getting kinetic kill missiles on line.
    Sir, you once said DG has 700 CMs, now you say DG has 400. Where is the remaining 300? Are 400 missiles enough for China? These are subsonic cruise missiles, not megaton bombs. I don't see how 400 CMs are enough for a country which hides its mojo inside tunnels.

    By kinetic, you mean lasers?
    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

  11. #161
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,788
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    Sir, you once said DG has 700 CMs, now you say DG has 400.
    Think you got my numbers mixed up. I've said 700+ cruise missiles attacked the Baghdad on the first day of the Iraq War. DG always housed 300-450 ALCM depending on the air wing deployed there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    Are 400 missiles enough for China? These are subsonic cruise missiles, not megaton bombs. I don't see how 400 CMs are enough for a country which hides its mojo inside tunnels.
    They're just one set of munitions to be used. There are also SLCMs and naval munitions to be used.

    However, the idea here would be to blind, to deafen, and to dumb the Chinese C3 so that they can't find the carrier task groups operating against them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    By kinetic, you mean lasers?
    Hypersonic systems in which the impact alone would cause enough damage that chemical explosives would not be required.

  12. #162
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    6,232
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    Insert the Russians for the Americans and you got it correct. The bulk of the disputed systems are stationed in the East, out of range of to hit Europe. In the 2000s, the Russians talked about withdrawing from the INF mainly because of the threats from China, Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan.

    The development of a 2 egnines for 1 missile allowed them to skirt the issue ... or so they thought. The other thing they did was the development of a ballastic missile with INF range. However, they did not classified it as an IRBM but an ICBM, again deployed in the East.
    Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan?

    If threat perception is considered, is it the notion that any country that can hit Russia with a missile is a threat (nukes or no nukes)? Or, rouge countries that can hit Russia are considered threats?

    Eliminating rouge countries, what about India when it comes to Russia? What about France, UK when it comes to US? Democracies and all? There is a better explanation than just democracy I guess.
    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

  13. #163
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    14,213
    in regards to this, joe,

    The difference is that Obama was already a decent human being, while Trump has been and always will be a miserable excuse for the same.
    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...threat/582748/

    it never ceases to amaze-- the lowness, the pettiness, and the general scumbaggery. it takes -talent- to be such a dick.

    ====

    On Wednesday, May 10, 2017, my first full day on the job as acting director of the FBI, I sat down with senior staff involved in the Russia case—the investigation into alleged ties between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. As the meeting began, my secretary relayed a message that the White House was calling. The president himself was on the line. I had spoken with him the night before, in the Oval Office, when he told me he had fired James Comey.

    A call like this was highly unusual. Presidents do not, typically, call FBI directors. There should be no direct contact between the president and the director, except for national-security purposes. The reason is simple. Investigations and prosecutions need to be pursued without a hint of suspicion that someone who wields power has put a thumb on the scale.

    The Russia team was in my office. I took the call on an unclassified line. That was another strange thing—the president was calling on a phone that was not secure. The voice on the other end said, It’s Don Trump calling. I said, Hello, Mr. President, how are you? Apart from my surprise that he was calling at all, I was surprised that he referred to himself as “Don.”

    The president said, I’m good. You know—boy, it’s incredible, it’s such a great thing, people are really happy about the fact that the director’s gone, and it’s just remarkable what people are saying. Have you seen that? Are you seeing that, too?

    He went on: I received hundreds of messages from FBI people—how happy they are that I fired him. There are people saying things on the media, have you seen that? What’s it like there in the building?

    This is what it was like: You could go to any floor and you would see small groups gathering in hallways, some people even crying. The overwhelming majority liked and admired Director Comey—his personal style, the integrity of his conduct. Now we were laboring under the same dank, gray shadow that had been creeping over Washington during the few months Donald Trump had been in office.

    I didn’t feel like I could say any of that to the president on the phone. I’m not sure I would have wanted to say it to him in person, either—or that he would have cared. I told him that people here were very surprised, but that we were trying to get back to work.

    The president said he thought most people in the FBI voted for him—he thought 80 percent. He asked me again, as he had in his office, if I knew that Comey had told him three times that he was not under investigation. Then he got to the reason for his call. He said, I really want to come over there. I want to come to the FBI. I want to show all my FBI people how much I love them, so I think maybe it would be good for me to come over and speak to everybody, like tomorrow or the next day.

    That sounded to me like one of the worst possible things that could happen. He was the boss, and had every right to come, but I hoped the idea would dissipate on its own. He said, Why don’t you come down here and talk to me about that later?

    After we agreed on a time to meet, the president began to talk about how upset he was that Comey had flown home on his government plane from Los Angeles—Comey had been giving a speech there when he learned he was fired. The president wanted to know how that had happened.

    I told him that bureau lawyers had assured me there was no legal issue with Comey coming home on the plane. I decided that he should do so. The existing threat assessment indicated he was still at risk, so he needed a protection detail. Since the members of the protection detail would all be coming home, it made sense to bring everybody back on the same plane they had used to fly out there. It was coming back anyway. The president flew off the handle: That’s not right! I don’t approve of that! That’s wrong! He reiterated his point five or seven times.

    I said, I’m sorry that you disagree, sir. But it was my decision, and that’s how I decided. The president said, I want you to look into that! I thought to myself: What am I going to look into? I just told you I made that decision.

    The ranting against Comey spiraled. I waited until he had talked himself out.

    Toward the end of the conversation, the president brought up the subject of my wife. Jill had run unsuccessfully for the Virginia state Senate back in 2015, and the president had said false and malicious things about her during his campaign in order to tarnish the FBI. He said, How is your wife? I said, She’s fine. He said, When she lost her election, that must have been very tough to lose. How did she handle losing? Is it tough to lose?

    I replied, I guess it’s tough to lose anything. But she’s rededicated herself to her career and her job and taking care of kids in the emergency room. That’s what she does.

    He replied in a tone that sounded like a sneer. He said, “Yeah, that must’ve been really tough. To lose. To be a loser.”
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  14. #164
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,788
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan?

    If threat perception is considered, is it the notion that any country that can hit Russia with a missile is a threat (nukes or no nukes)? Or, rouge countries that can hit Russia are considered threats?

    Eliminating rouge countries, what about India when it comes to Russia? What about France, UK when it comes to US? Democracies and all? There is a better explanation than just democracy I guess.
    Russia has a Friendship Treaty with India. Not so those countries.

    US, France, and UK are NATO allies.

  15. #165
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    10,961
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan?

    If threat perception is considered, is it the notion that any country that can hit Russia with a missile is a threat (nukes or no nukes)? Or, rouge countries that can hit Russia are considered threats?

    Eliminating rouge countries, what about India when it comes to Russia? What about France, UK when it comes to US? Democracies and all? There is a better explanation than just democracy I guess.
    Rouge means the colour red in French

    The word you want is rogue

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. 2018 American Political Scene
    By astralis in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 2014
    Last Post: 31 Dec 18,, 00:27
  2. 2017 American Political Scene
    By YellowFever in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 2571
    Last Post: 29 Dec 17,, 21:34
  3. American political duplication between Riyadh and Israel
    By ahmed in forum International Politics
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 29 Apr 07,, 22:06

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •